Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

Neurotypical Privilege

Page 10 of 17 [ 257 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 17  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

14 Feb 2014, 8:08 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Yes. Here is one of the definitions cited by her.

http://www.opensourceleadership.com/doc ... itions.pdf

Quoted: "Privilege exists when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they’ve done or failed to do".

"Minorities" - entitled minority benefits is something of value given to only minorities, the reason they get that is not because of something they did or not do and it is denied to non-minorities.

"Autistic people" - WP members saying they have some "superior traits" (something of value) than NT people, and they did not get those advantages because of something they did or did not do. These "superior traits" are denied to others who are not autistic.

"The poor" have the advantage of freedom (something of value) simply because they are poor. They don't have the bills, or material possessions tieing them down. They don't have to have the worries about the possessions and what can happen to them. They don't have to worry about finances, managing their finances. This is denied to wealthy people who do have all these problems, especially a business owner that can have extreme stress from managing a business.

"The Fat people" - have the enviable ability - to some - to eat a lot of food - and the advantage of not worrying about gaining weight - less stress, less worry and I would say it is because of a state of mind not that they got fat, so it is not about something they did not do. It might also have a biological basis.


Congratulations. You just engaged in quote-mining. It is clear you are not posting in good faith.

Here is the full definition from that link:

Quote:
Unearned benefits conferred upon members of mainstream or dominant groups (in the US, these include male, white, heterosexual, affluent, young, able-bodied, and/or Christian) at the expenses of others. Privilege exists when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they’ve done or failed to do (Peggy McIntosh). Privilege can manifest through visible advantages such as access to wealth, professional opportunities, and social status, as well as more subtly through, for example, freedom of behavior and setting the standard of normality against which others are judged. Dominant group members may be unaware of their privilege or take it for granted.


Also, the rest of that link make the context of what is meant by privilege very clear.

It's clear you are simply unwilling to read and understand it.

Please note that that is your failing.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

14 Feb 2014, 8:16 pm

JSBACHlover wrote:
The following was posed above:
"The poor" have social advantages over non-poor, namely "freedom" from a lot of things, and that is a social advantage to be able to move around the country unlike people tied to their material possessions such as a house or even a job. Like the Janis Joplin song, "Freedom is when you have nothing left to lose".

I have a friend who owns a private jet. Now, let me tell you, that is a man with freedom to move around the country!


Yes, however, then he has the disadvantage of paying for it, maintaining it, and worrying about it. Possibly, he is even tied to that jet if he cannot sell it.

A person with no jet does not have any of these disadvantages.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

14 Feb 2014, 8:30 pm

beneficii wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Yes. Here is one of the definitions cited by her.

http://www.opensourceleadership.com/doc ... itions.pdf

Quoted: "Privilege exists when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they’ve done or failed to do".

"Minorities" - entitled minority benefits is something of value given to only minorities, the reason they get that is not because of something they did or not do and it is denied to non-minorities.

"Autistic people" - WP members saying they have some "superior traits" (something of value) than NT people, and they did not get those advantages because of something they did or did not do. These "superior traits" are denied to others who are not autistic.

"The poor" have the advantage of freedom (something of value) simply because they are poor. They don't have the bills, or material possessions tieing them down. They don't have to have the worries about the possessions and what can happen to them. They don't have to worry about finances, managing their finances. This is denied to wealthy people who do have all these problems, especially a business owner that can have extreme stress from managing a business.

"The Fat people" - have the enviable ability - to some - to eat a lot of food - and the advantage of not worrying about gaining weight - less stress, less worry and I would say it is because of a state of mind not that they got fat, so it is not about something they did not do. It might also have a biological basis.


Congratulations. You just engaged in quote-mining. It is clear you are not posting in good faith.

Here is the full definition from that link:

Quote:
Unearned benefits conferred upon members of mainstream or dominant groups (in the US, these include male, white, heterosexual, affluent, young, able-bodied, and/or Christian) at the expenses of others. Privilege exists when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they’ve done or failed to do (Peggy McIntosh). Privilege can manifest through visible advantages such as access to wealth, professional opportunities, and social status, as well as more subtly through, for example, freedom of behavior and setting the standard of normality against which others are judged. Dominant group members may be unaware of their privilege or take it for granted.


Also, the rest of that link make the context of what is meant by privilege very clear.

It's clear you are simply unwilling to read and understand it.

Please note that that is your failing.


1. I had to "quote mine" because no one would provide a definition. I was told to go to those links, and find the definition. Funny, now that I did that then people turn around and accuse me of "quote mining".

2. The additional language you cite actually makes the definition broader so I left it out because it cites examples. Examples are not a definition.

3. You fail at explaining how any additional language left out changes the definition.

4. If this definition is not correct, then where is the correct one ?

5. Look at what you arguing ..

You think ... autistic people have no advantage over other people? Seriously ?

Are you so into the social agenda mindset that you are willing to throw out logic ?

6. Here is a link to "black privilege"

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... id=7034294

Does this make "black Privilege" a true thing ? This appears to be the argument.

7. Not I am not arguing any agenda. :) I have no interest in these groups. I am just following through from my original post where I was told I was wrong. :)



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

14 Feb 2014, 8:39 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
beneficii wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Yes. Here is one of the definitions cited by her.

http://www.opensourceleadership.com/doc ... itions.pdf

Quoted: "Privilege exists when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they’ve done or failed to do".

"Minorities" - entitled minority benefits is something of value given to only minorities, the reason they get that is not because of something they did or not do and it is denied to non-minorities.

"Autistic people" - WP members saying they have some "superior traits" (something of value) than NT people, and they did not get those advantages because of something they did or did not do. These "superior traits" are denied to others who are not autistic.

"The poor" have the advantage of freedom (something of value) simply because they are poor. They don't have the bills, or material possessions tieing them down. They don't have to have the worries about the possessions and what can happen to them. They don't have to worry about finances, managing their finances. This is denied to wealthy people who do have all these problems, especially a business owner that can have extreme stress from managing a business.

"The Fat people" - have the enviable ability - to some - to eat a lot of food - and the advantage of not worrying about gaining weight - less stress, less worry and I would say it is because of a state of mind not that they got fat, so it is not about something they did not do. It might also have a biological basis.


Congratulations. You just engaged in quote-mining. It is clear you are not posting in good faith.

Here is the full definition from that link:

Quote:
Unearned benefits conferred upon members of mainstream or dominant groups (in the US, these include male, white, heterosexual, affluent, young, able-bodied, and/or Christian) at the expenses of others. Privilege exists when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they’ve done or failed to do (Peggy McIntosh). Privilege can manifest through visible advantages such as access to wealth, professional opportunities, and social status, as well as more subtly through, for example, freedom of behavior and setting the standard of normality against which others are judged. Dominant group members may be unaware of their privilege or take it for granted.


Also, the rest of that link make the context of what is meant by privilege very clear.

It's clear you are simply unwilling to read and understand it.

Please note that that is your failing.


1. I had to "quote mine" because no one would provide a definition. I was told to go to those links, and find the definition. Funny, now that I did that then people turn around and accuse me of "quote mining".

2. The additional language you cite actually makes the definition broader so I left it out because it cites examples. Examples are not a definition.

3. You fail at explaining how any additional language left out changes the definition.

4. If this definition is not correct, then where is the correct one ?

5. Look at what you arguing ..

You think ... autistic people have no advantage over other people? Seriously ?

Are you so into the social agenda mindset that you are willing to throw out logic ?


It opens with this:

Quote:
Unearned benefits conferred upon members of mainstream or dominant groups ... at the expenses of others.


That makes the meaning very specific, not broad, actually. Poor people are not mainstream or dominant, autistic people are not mainstream or dominant, black people are not mainstream or dominant, women are mainstream but not dominant, etc. Also, the supposed idiot savant skills of autistic people are not acquired "at the expenses of others." By leaving out this opening statement that specifies what is being discussed, you completely change the context of the quote to being any advantage one group has that another group lacks.

Seriously, LoveNotHate, I am surprised. You've been a pretty intelligent poster in other areas, but here you engage in one of the worst acts of intellectual dishonesty possible, which is quote-mining plus refusing to own up to it when it's been pointed out to you.

That's just lowdown, especially when you use these tactics to trash other people and perpetuate inequality.

And that's pretty effing fishy, using the fact that examples were used in an important sentence to completely exclude it from consideration.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

14 Feb 2014, 8:41 pm

kicker wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
I assume "rob" is not literal.

So "the poor" are a privilege group ? Because they take money from non-poor people in form of taxation and benefits.


You seem to be obsessed with claiming poor people are privileged. Why don't you try to develop that into a real argument instead of the inept "gotcha" that you seem to enjoy so much?


This is the extreme form of intellectual dishonesty.

Deception, and insult.


May I make a suggestion, just stop. No matter what you say they will both twist it around till they get their way. It's a tactic used to beat you down till you either side with them or they get the last word which ever comes first. Just isn't worth falling for.


Thanks.

It seems so.

I have no desire to "win" and I have no interest in this topic. I just felt slighted after I was told I was posting false information.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

14 Feb 2014, 9:06 pm

beneficii wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
beneficii wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Yes. Here is one of the definitions cited by her.

http://www.opensourceleadership.com/doc ... itions.pdf

Quoted: "Privilege exists when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they’ve done or failed to do".

"Minorities" - entitled minority benefits is something of value given to only minorities, the reason they get that is not because of something they did or not do and it is denied to non-minorities.

"Autistic people" - WP members saying they have some "superior traits" (something of value) than NT people, and they did not get those advantages because of something they did or did not do. These "superior traits" are denied to others who are not autistic.

"The poor" have the advantage of freedom (something of value) simply because they are poor. They don't have the bills, or material possessions tieing them down. They don't have to have the worries about the possessions and what can happen to them. They don't have to worry about finances, managing their finances. This is denied to wealthy people who do have all these problems, especially a business owner that can have extreme stress from managing a business.

"The Fat people" - have the enviable ability - to some - to eat a lot of food - and the advantage of not worrying about gaining weight - less stress, less worry and I would say it is because of a state of mind not that they got fat, so it is not about something they did not do. It might also have a biological basis.


Congratulations. You just engaged in quote-mining. It is clear you are not posting in good faith.

Here is the full definition from that link:

Quote:
Unearned benefits conferred upon members of mainstream or dominant groups (in the US, these include male, white, heterosexual, affluent, young, able-bodied, and/or Christian) at the expenses of others. Privilege exists when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they’ve done or failed to do (Peggy McIntosh). Privilege can manifest through visible advantages such as access to wealth, professional opportunities, and social status, as well as more subtly through, for example, freedom of behavior and setting the standard of normality against which others are judged. Dominant group members may be unaware of their privilege or take it for granted.


Also, the rest of that link make the context of what is meant by privilege very clear.

It's clear you are simply unwilling to read and understand it.

Please note that that is your failing.


1. I had to "quote mine" because no one would provide a definition. I was told to go to those links, and find the definition. Funny, now that I did that then people turn around and accuse me of "quote mining".

2. The additional language you cite actually makes the definition broader so I left it out because it cites examples. Examples are not a definition.

3. You fail at explaining how any additional language left out changes the definition.

4. If this definition is not correct, then where is the correct one ?

5. Look at what you arguing ..

You think ... autistic people have no advantage over other people? Seriously ?

Are you so into the social agenda mindset that you are willing to throw out logic ?


It opens with this:

Quote:
Unearned benefits conferred upon members of mainstream or dominant groups ... at the expenses of others.


That makes the meaning very specific, not broad, actually. Poor people are not mainstream or dominant, autistic people are not mainstream or dominant, black people are not mainstream or dominant, women are mainstream but not dominant, etc.


1. How are poor people not mainstream ? What does it take ?

47% tax filers in America are so poor that they don't pay federal taxes (http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxe ... ays_taxes/ ), and about 108 million Americans are on some form of public means-tested assistance ( http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christiner ... e-n1731984 ) and more people are on some form of welfare in America than work full time and this does not even count the millions of social security recipients.

This does not count the 11 million or so illegals, and the untold people so poor that they don't file taxes.

Depending on how you slice "the poor", then they are the dominant group, especially, if it is sliced for political purposes.

2. I stated earlier that the poor live at the expense of other in terms of taxation.

These two factors seem to address the additions you made to the definition ?

3. Do you agree or will you add more additions to the definition ?

4. All I hear is how awful I am because I ask for a definition. I am so intellectually dishonest, because no one will explain how I am so wrong. Yet, I keep chugging along and getting us closer to an understanding. :)

5. I used the wiki definition and provided it. And I looked up the above definition that is currently be used. So, I seem to be the most honest.



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

14 Feb 2014, 9:19 pm

LoveNotHate,

If it's so great being poor, then quit your cushy government job, sell all your possessions, give away all your money, and try it out. You will find out that you are not so mainstream or dominant as you might have thought, as you are BS'ed and shuffled around from shelter to shelter, food hall to food hall, other service to other service, and might even end up in jail here and there for a nuisance crime (where they'll take good care of you). And I hear it's extra extra fun when you're autistic (if what some of the other posters on here have reported is true!), and when you're autistic and poor, guess what! you'll probably spend more time in jail for "nuisance crimes" than someone who's just poor!

Must be better than having to pay some taxes, though, huh?

Or even, keep an apartment and your car, but no cushy job, instead getting a working-class job (your cushy government job doesn't count), where you have to engage in the service sector, fighting up against the sensory issues and problems inherent in that. Also, the whole thing about, What if I don't get my next paycheck? where you could end up in the situation in the first paragraph.

Some privilege, huh? I'd rather have the government rob me through taxation, when I actually have to be thankful for what society enabled me to do and understand there are some whom society has kinda left behind.

You see, instead of taking individual variables out of context, it is better to live in the real world. When people study privilege, they are studying the real world impacts, the real world relationships, not this superficial crap that you do.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

14 Feb 2014, 9:33 pm

BTW, for some context on being poor, and how being poor means you get screwed over by society, there is this excellent article written in The Atlantic online last month:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... or/282979/


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

14 Feb 2014, 9:47 pm

beneficii wrote:
LoveNotHate,

If it's so great being poor, then quit your cushy government job, sell all your possessions, give away all your money, and try it out. You will find out that you are not so mainstream or dominant as you might have thought, as you are BS'ed and shuffled around from shelter to shelter, food hall to food hall, other service to other service, and might even end up in jail here and there for a nuisance crime (where they'll take good care of you). And I hear it's extra extra fun when you're autistic (if what some of the other posters on here have reported is true!), and when you're autistic and poor, guess what! you'll probably spend more time in jail for "nuisance crimes" than someone who's just poor!

Must be better than having to pay some taxes, though, huh?


1. Yes, being poor can suck if one cannot get the things one values.

2. I watch for job postings so you can get a cushy government job too. I will let you know if any open up per your education. They would love
to have someone so argumentative, and can write so well.

3. However, the appeal to emotion, of citing anecdotal tragedy of a poor person has no bearing on the definition of a "priviledge group".


Quote:
Some privilege, huh? I'd rather have the government rob me through taxation, when I actually have to be thankful for what society enabled me to do and understand there are some whom society has kinda left behind.


1. The definition stated only "a value is given to the group".

2. The reason the definition is so broad is because of this "problem" for the social, progressive thinkers .... Most people in America on welfare are white.

3. Thus, contrary to your appeal to emotion argument, the economic hardship of people is irrelevant because "disabled, poor and has all the horrible things you mention" white people are put into the white privilege category.

4. It would be disingenuous to consider real world factors when that is not how the use of the term has been applied earlier in this thread, i.e., if we think poor and disabled are not privileged then how do they get put into the "white privilege" group ?

5. The definition as it has been used requires us only to see some value the group has that others outside the group do not have, and disregard any hardships.



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

14 Feb 2014, 9:53 pm

Anyone who thinks we live in a pure "meritocracy" is a buffoon.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,863
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

14 Feb 2014, 10:00 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
JSBACHlover wrote:
The following was posed above:
"The poor" have social advantages over non-poor, namely "freedom" from a lot of things, and that is a social advantage to be able to move around the country unlike people tied to their material possessions such as a house or even a job. Like the Janis Joplin song, "Freedom is when you have nothing left to lose".

I have a friend who owns a private jet. Now, let me tell you, that is a man with freedom to move around the country!


Yes, however, then he has the disadvantage of paying for it, maintaining it, and worrying about it. Possibly, he is even tied to that jet if he cannot sell it.

A person with no jet does not have any of these disadvantages.


How cruel of society to force this private jet onto this person....so now they have to pay for it, maintain it and worry about it....Oh my god this person has it so much worse than the very poor and homeless.

:roll:


_________________
We won't go back.


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

14 Feb 2014, 10:01 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
3. However, the appeal to emotion, of citing anecdotal tragedy of a poor person has no bearing on the definition of a "priviledge group".


These are prototypes (i.e. each is "a standard or typical example," per Webster's dictionary), not anecdotes. This is the average poor person (with autistic issues thrown in). With society making it very difficult to get out of such a terrible position, while people in the middle-class and above benefit from their underpaid labor and from other aspects of their situation (such as being put in a corporate-run prison), it certainly has plenty of bearing on the definition of a privileged group. If you fail to see this, then there really isn't much point discussing anything else. This is the kinda stuff that you would figure out had you actually bothered to read Verdandi's links for context and looked at the history shown by Verdandi.

Quote:
2. I watch for job postings so you can get a cushy government job too. I will let you know if any open up per your education. They would love
to have someone so argumentative, and can write so well.


Actually, I do have a fairly cushy job already, and this one is for a private business with mainly private customers. Nevertheless, I have no personal objection to working for taxpayers' dollars and would be happy to take a reference.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

14 Feb 2014, 10:03 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
JSBACHlover wrote:
The following was posed above:
"The poor" have social advantages over non-poor, namely "freedom" from a lot of things, and that is a social advantage to be able to move around the country unlike people tied to their material possessions such as a house or even a job. Like the Janis Joplin song, "Freedom is when you have nothing left to lose".

I have a friend who owns a private jet. Now, let me tell you, that is a man with freedom to move around the country!


Yes, however, then he has the disadvantage of paying for it, maintaining it, and worrying about it. Possibly, he is even tied to that jet if he cannot sell it.

A person with no jet does not have any of these disadvantages.


How cruel of society to force this private jet onto this person....so now they have to pay for it, maintain it and worry about it....Oh my god this person has it so much worse than the very poor and homeless.

:roll:


I know, right? Jeez Louise. *eyes roll all the way back up into my head*


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


preludeman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 562
Location: Florida

14 Feb 2014, 11:42 pm

Do not get me started about NT privilege. They can do "anything" they want, and get away with it. They believe they are "Superior." I remember back in school a "GIFTED" student sent a kid to the ER for doing a trick in which the student's oxygen was cut off to the brain. This "GIFTED" student wanted to do the same to me "THE STUPID STUDENT", yet because my Father was a Navy Medic and I knew what would happen. I declined and pointed out it was a bad idea, yet he did it anyway. The boy had both eyes diluted and was unresponsive. The "GIFTED Student" was not expelled because as it was later explained to me "GIFTED STUDENTS" might find the cure for cancer. This was 30+ years and no cure. The "GIFTED STUDENT" was grounded, and his Father had to pay for the ER. The student recovered as far as, I know. If that was "ME" . I would have been thrown of school.


_________________
Do what you can when you can. I'm also the "alien"they are looking for.


btbnnyr
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago

15 Feb 2014, 12:10 am

The issue of attribution is interesting. I tend to attribute positive and negative mostly to myself and rarely to anything else, including autism or other people.


_________________
Drain and plane and grain and blain your brain, and then again,
Propane and butane out of the gas main, your blain shall sustain!


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

15 Feb 2014, 1:04 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
JSBACHlover wrote:
The following was posed above:
"The poor" have social advantages over non-poor, namely "freedom" from a lot of things, and that is a social advantage to be able to move around the country unlike people tied to their material possessions such as a house or even a job. Like the Janis Joplin song, "Freedom is when you have nothing left to lose".

I have a friend who owns a private jet. Now, let me tell you, that is a man with freedom to move around the country!


Yes, however, then he has the disadvantage of paying for it, maintaining it, and worrying about it. Possibly, he is even tied to that jet if he cannot sell it.

A person with no jet does not have any of these disadvantages.


How cruel of society to force this private jet onto this person....so now they have to pay for it, maintain it and worry about it....Oh my god this person has it so much worse than the very poor and homeless.

:roll:


1. I think all religious people who takes vows of poverty would laugh at your apparent sarcasm that money buys happiness.

2. Further, the definition of "privilege group" presented has nothing to do with subjective beliefs. It is a defined term, not what one feels is better or worse for a group.

3. It only requires a single "value" to be bestowed to a group.

4. There are many benefits to being poor. I cited "freedom" from material items.